Results 81 - 100 of 174
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Morant61 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Angel? | Mark 15:42 | Morant61 | 146002 | ||
Greetings Childoflight777! First of all, welcome to the forum! Secondly, I haven't had a chance to read all of your posts as of yet. Who is this 'angel' that you keep mentioning? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
82 | Destroyed or Defeated? | Luke 10:27 | Morant61 | 124995 | ||
Greetings C Marengo! I agree my friend that Satan is a defeated enemy. However, he has not been completely destroyed. If he had been, why would James say to resist the devil? Why would Paul speak of the flaming arrows of the devil in Eph. 6? A wounded animal is more dangerous! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
83 | Does Luke 16 use the term 'parable'? | Luke 16:23 | Morant61 | 86040 | ||
Greetings Goodnewsminister! In the example that you cite from Matt. 13, notice the pattern. Mt. 13:3 - "Then he told them many things in parables, saying: 'A farmer went out to sow his seed." Mt. 13:24 - "Jesus told them another parable: 'The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field." Mt. 13:31 - "He told them another parable: 'The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field." Mt. 13:33 - "He told them still another parable: 'The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough.'" Mt. 13:34 - "Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable." There are more, but this should suffice. Each parable is identified as being a parable. Where in Luke 16 is the account of Lazarus and the Rich man called a parable? Notice also that Mt. 13:34 refers to 'these things', the things Jesus was currently speaking to the crowd. Mt. 13:34 does not provide justification for saying that everything Jesus said to a crowd at anytime was also a parable. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
84 | Where is Luke 16:19ff called a parable? | Luke 16:23 | Morant61 | 86338 | ||
Greetings Matt! Two quick points, if I may? 1) The question isn't what you believe about Luke 16:19ff. The question is what does Scripture say my friend. This passage is never identfied as a parable. Therefore, one is only speculating if one claims that it is! :-) However, there are many places where Scripture clearly says that Jesus was using a parable. So, can anyone simply claim that any passage he doesn't agree with is a parable? 2) Luke 8:10 has no relevance to Luke 16:19ff. It would be absurd to claim on the basis of this verse that everything Jesus said to anyone who wasn't one of His disciples had to be a parable. How about Mt. 12:3-8? Jesus answered the question of the Pharisees with a straight answer, not a parable! 3) Eternal Fire: Mt. 18:8 uses the adjective 'aionios' to describe the fire. This adjective only occurs 70 times in the New Testament. Your telling me that 56 of these occurances refer to things that have already ended? Which verses please? How also do you explain Mt. 25:46? "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." The same exact adjective describes both the 'life' and the 'punishment'. How can one refer to 'life' that lasts forever, but the other to a punishment that ends at some point? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
85 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Morant61 | 91005 | ||
Greetings Truthfinder! Long time, no see my friend! You wrote that many Bibles have changed 'Jehovah' to 'Lord', yet that is exactly what Jesus did in Matt. 4:10 - He used the word 'Lord' instead of Jehovah. So, why is it a problem to translate Jehovah as Lord? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
86 | Which reading? | John 1:18 | Morant61 | 77098 | ||
Greetings Truthfinder! I can't tell from your post which reading you think is original! The evidence seems to be better for the reading 'monogenes theos'. This is the reading supported by the papyrus manuscripts which tend to be the oldest manuscripts. While, the reading 'monogenes uios' is heavily supported by the uncials. So, I guess to continue this discussion, I would ask which reading you believe is original? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
87 | What does Scripture mean by no works? | John 3:5 | Morant61 | 111327 | ||
Greetings Colin! My friend, what then does Scripture mean when it says that we are not saved by works? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
88 | What does Scripture mean by no works? | John 3:5 | Morant61 | 111328 | ||
Greetings Colin! My friend, what then does Scripture mean when it says that we are not saved by works? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
89 | When is an indefinite pronoun definite? | John 3:16 | Morant61 | 89302 | ||
Greetings John! I know you would never really hate me! :-) I have heard this interpretation before, but it doesn't make any sense for two reasons. 1) First of all, if the basis for the Lord's delay in coming is that He doesn't want any of the people to whom Peter is writing to perish, then what is the basis for the Lord's delay. The one's to whom Peter is writing are already saved! 2) Secondly, the pronoun 'you' is not the only pronoun used. Peter also uses 'any' and 'all'. Now, we have discussed 'all' before, but 'any' is an indefinite pronoun. It does to refer to 'all' people with out discrimination, hence the 'indefinite' part. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
90 | Was Jehovah wrong? | John 3:16 | Morant61 | 111996 | ||
Greetings Tara1! I have asked you at least two times, with no response, how this doctrine of 'gods' can be correct when Jehovah Himself said in Is. 43:10: "'You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, 'and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me." So, was Jehovah wrong and there is in fact other gods? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
91 | Where does Scripture teach an exception? | John 4:14 | Morant61 | 103402 | ||
Greetings AO! Where exactly does Scripture state that the Apostles and the family of Cornelius were exceptions to the rule? I have had this discussion many times with many different proponents of baptismal regeneration. The end result is always the same - Acts 10 is an exception to the rule. Even though, Scripture never makes such a statement. Allow me to illustrate why this position simply doesn't work. Proponents have baptismal regeneration usually rely upon a particular intepretation of Acts 2:38 for one defense of their position. This intepretation says that two things are required for salvation (the 'gift of the Holy Spirit' being synonomous with salvation): 1) repentance, and 2) baptism. Yet, in Acts 10:45, we are told that the 'gift of the Holy Spirit' was received prior to water baptism. Therefore, one can only conclude that this particular intepretation of Acts 2:38 is in error. To read my view on this verse, simply search the archives, but the short version is this: There is only one condition for salvation in Acts 2:38, that being repentance. The phrase, 'be baptized' is an appositional phrase added to the sentence to describe what one does afterwards. This is evidenced by the grammatical change in form in the Greek text. But, I wander! :-) Back to your point, where does Scripture teach that God will make exceptions to your understanding of Acts 2:38. Is baptism required or not? Is is only required for some or all? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
92 | How does this relate to the context? | John 4:16 | Morant61 | 20118 | ||
Counter View! Greetings Casiv! If Gal. 6:8 means this, then what does it have to do with the context? Where does the word 'understanding' come from since it is not found in Gal. 6:8? Further, what possible connection is there between John 4:18 and 1 Cor. 11:2? The word is 'husband'? If that is the case, then is every verse where the word 'husband' is used also connected to John 4:18? This is the problem with this kind of interpretational scheme! It ignores the context and creates fantasy connections that can mean whatever you want! In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
93 | Evidence? | John 5:19 | Morant61 | 127921 | ||
Greetings Fatherof4! You wrote: "Finally, you have been deceived by Bible translations which have used translated the original as “earth” or "world" when it should have been translated as “land”. All the “nations of the land” did actually mourn when God used the Roman armies to come upon them in judgment in AD 70." What evidence do you have that 'earth' is a mistranslation? I have studied Greek for years now, and every source I consulted lists 'earth' as one of the possible meanings of the word. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
94 | Have I misunderstood your question? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 4799 | ||
Thanks for your response! I'm not sure if I understood your original question correctly. I was under the impression that you were questioning the Trinity by implying that Jesus and the Father were both one in the flesh, rather than distinct members of the Godhead. After reading your most recent response, I still get that impression, but I'm not sure. Could you clarify for me what you were getting at with your original question? For now, allow me to respond as though my assumption is correct. There is nothing in this passage that is contrary to the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, the passage supports the doctrine of the Trinity. Notice how all Three Members of the Trinity are mentioned in this passage. 1) John 10:12 - Jesus says that He will go to the Father. 2) John 10:13 - Jesus will respond to our prayers that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 3) John 10:16 - Jesus prays to the Father for Another Comforter (The Holy Spirit). Clearly, we have three Members of the Godhead mentioned in this passage. One (Jesus) is incarnate on earth, praying to the Father, that He will send Another Comforter to dwell in believers after Jesus ascends back to the Father. If I have misunderstood your position, please let me know! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
95 | Have I misunderstood your question? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 4800 | ||
Thanks for your response! I'm not sure if I understood your original question correctly. I was under the impression that you were questioning the Trinity by implying that Jesus and the Father were both one in the flesh, rather than distinct members of the Godhead. After reading your most recent response, I still get that impression, but I'm not sure. Could you clarify for me what you were getting at with your original question? For now, allow me to respond as though my assumption is correct. There is nothing in this passage that is contrary to the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, the passage supports the doctrine of the Trinity. Notice how all Three Members of the Trinity are mentioned in this passage. 1) John 10:12 - Jesus says that He will go to the Father. 2) John 10:13 - Jesus will respond to our prayers that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 3) John 10:16 - Jesus prays to the Father for Another Comforter (The Holy Spirit). Clearly, we have three Members of the Godhead mentioned in this passage. One (Jesus) is incarnate on earth, praying to another (the Father), that He will send another (the Holy Spirit) to dwell in believers after Jesus ascends back to the Father. If I have misunderstood your position, please let me know! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
96 | Three Offices or Three Persons? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 4854 | ||
Thanks for your response! Now that I understand where you are coming from, here is what I propose. The major point that we disagree on is whether or not there are three persons in the Godhead or three offices in the Godhead. We both believe there is only one God. So, the question we need to focus on is what the Bible says about the three (persons/offices). Since this is such a complex issue, I would like to narrow the focus. I propose that we exchange questions that we feel illustrate our position. In order for this to work, we both must honestly and fairly deal with the question asked. Too often, in complex debates, questions are never really dealt with, only swept away with more questions. If you are open to this, it should be a fun and challenging debate. Here is my first question: Who was Jesus praying to in John 14:16? John 14:16 - "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—" Clearly, Jesus is praying to the Father, asking that the Father will send another Counselor (The Holy Spirit) to dwell within believers. If (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are only three offices or roles in which God manifests Himself, who was Jesus praying to when He prayed to the Father? I'm looking forward to your response and question. Tim Moran |
||||||
97 | Human and Divine? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 4903 | ||
Hi Sharp! Let me start with me response, then I'll deal with your question. 1) Response If I understand your response to my question correctly, you are saying that Jesus was praying to Himself because He was operating at that moment as a man and not as God. Let me know if I have missed the boat! My problem with that interpretation is this: Yes, Jesus was fully man, but He was also fully God. What I mean is this. The fullness of the Godhead was always as much a part of His nature as was His humanity. There was never a time when Jesus was not aware of who He was (the 2nd person of the Godhead.) Jesus even says to Philip, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" (John 14:9). Clearly, Jesus is fully aware of His Divinity as well as His humanity. Therefore, when Jesus says that He will pray to the Father, I believe He is really praying to someone. Also, when He says that He will pray for another Comforter, I believe that there really is another Comforter. Therefore, I don't think that you can explain this verse away by appealing to His humanity. What do you think? 2) Answer. I'm not sure I understand where you are going with this line of questioning. Usually, this is a tact taken by those trying to disprove the Deity of Christ. Can you clarify where you are going? In the meantime, let me address this passage. There is one thing that we know about Christ, there never was a time when He did not exist. He is fully God (Col. 2:9, John 1:1) and as such has always existed. So, whatever Heb. 1:6 is refering to it is not refering to a point in time when Christ came into existence. However, the incarnation is not the normal state of Christ. This seems to be what Heb. 1:6 is refering to. On the day that Christ was born of the virgin Mary, He became the Son of God (a status change). This is a name that is superior to the angels and unique to Christ (Phil. 2:9-11). Two other passages (Acts 13:33 and Rom. 1:3-4) even go further and specify that it was the resurrection which declares the Jesus is the Son of God. So, my answer to your question is this: At His birth and resurrection, Jesus was declared the Son of God. However, there never was a time when Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity did not exist. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
98 | Can Modes Interact with One Another? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 4932 | ||
Hi Sharp! As I've said in an earlier post, we would agree on almost everything you say about the Godhead. Is Jesus fully God? Of course He is! The only difference between the doctrines of Modalism and Trinity is on the question of whether or not Father, Son, and Spirit are three modes of God or three disinct 'persons' within the Godhead. Is there only One God and Father of all? Of course there is only one God. The doctrine of the Trinity does not teach that there are three Gods. It simply accepts the reality of three distinct Persons, who are all God. It is definitely not easy to understand God's nature. However, Modalism does not seem to do just to the reality of the Three. Jesus prays to the Father. Jesus ascends to the Father. Jesus is sent by the Father. Jesus and the Father both send the Holy Spirit. How do you explain the interaction? Let me ask a question which is similar to my first question. In John 14:23, why does Jesus use a plural 'we' when He speaks of the Father and the Son coming to live within the believer? Let me be clear, I do not believe in multiple Gods! There is only one God. Yet, within that one God, there appears to be three distinct persons, not just modes. They interact with one another. They can be obedient to one another. How can a mode pray to another mode? I'm looking forward to your reply! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
99 | Modes or Persons? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 4940 | ||
Hi Sharp! Have you been arguing or debating? :-) I understand where you are coming from with your questions. The problem is that they don't prove that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are modes as opposed to three Persons with in a Trinity. Everything that can be said about the Father, can be said about the Son, can be said about the Holy Spirit (with the exception of the incarnation). I have no problem with Jesus being the first and the last and the Father being the first and the last, because they are both God. The only point we seem to disagree on is whether or not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are only modes in which God operates, or three distinct, but equal persons within the Godhead. I have been honestly trying to deal with your questions. I would like to ask you to explain your view of John 14:23 for me. As a modalist, how can Jesus speak of 'we' when He says that the Father and the Son will come to dwell within a believer? If there is no plurality within the Godhead, there could be no we! I'm looking forward to your response. I may not be able to reply until later though, I am getting ready to go to bed. I have been up all night! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
100 | Conflict between the two natures? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 5005 | ||
Thank you for a thoughtful response! When I discuss or debate with someone, I am sincerely interested in interacting with them. Too often, those with differing views are unwilling to deal with the questions that others raise, and simply pile on more questions, without ever dealing with the issues that have been raised. We may never agree with one another, but we can share our reasons for our beliefs. The issue of prayer in an important one when it comes to understanding the differences between trinitarinism and modalism. You said, "By definition, God in His omnipotence has no need to pray, and in His oneness has no other to whom He can pray. If the prayers of Jesus prove there are two persons in the Godhead, then one of those persons is subordinate to the other and therefore not fully or truly God." Yet, in the incarnation, wasn't Jesus temporarily subordinate to the Father. In John 14:28, Jesus says that "...the Father is greater than I." Those who reject the Diety of Christ try to use this verse to deny that Jesus was fully God. We both agree that He was and is God. However, trinitarians believe that during the incarnation, Jesus was, as man, subordinate to the Father. Hence, it was legitimate for the Son to pray to the Father, while He was in the flesh. This fact does not deny the Deity of Christ, it only affirms both the fact of the incarnation and the reality of the prayer. Later, you wrote: "The choice is simple. Either Jesus as God prayed to the Father or Jesus as man prayed to the Father. If the former were true, then we have a form of subordinationism or Arianism in which one person in the Godhead is inferior to, not co-equal with, another person in the Godhead. This contradicts the biblical concept of one God, the full deity of Jesus, and the omnipotence of God. If the second alternative is correct, and we believe that it is, then no distinction of persons in the Godhead exists. The only distinction is between humanity and divinity, not between God and God." In your first alternative, I disagree with your definition of Arianism. Affirming that Jesus was subordinate to the Father during the incarnation is not the same as Arianism. Arianism taught that in terms of His essential essence, Christ was subordinate to the Father. Though we disagree, I appreciate a well thought out answer. My biggest problem with your response concerns the battle between the human and Divine wills of Christ. In my understanding of the nature of Christ, He was always fully aware of who He was. He was fully God and fully man. I don't see any evidence in Scripture that there ever was any kind of division or battle between these wills. Therefore, I don't accept that Jesus was praying to the Father, only as a human, not as God. Can you supply any evidence from Scripture that there was such a division between His nature's? I look forward to your reply! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |